On another note, the CCR overtly points out that the possibility of wrecking your car conducting a completely legal move. If you are in front and someone is attempting to over take you, you have every right to crowd them at your own risk. I’m not advocating removing common sense from your driving style, but the rules appear to be written in way to clearly define legal driver actions and to remove subjective judgement from fault adjudication.

In this situation, I still think the rules are clear. For those that disagree, how about some discussion on better solutions?

What language changes would you suggest? How can we make our rules safer and easier to understand without introducing more subjectivity?[/quote]

Just trying to get a dialogue going that maybe the red car or white car weren’t in the wrong, but maybe the rules need to be clarified or addressed to prevent a dangerous situation like this from happening over and over again. All it takes is someone who thinks they will be protected by the rules and does not care about consequences or writing checks for race cars, to seriously injure someone else or worse, because the rules says its ok. Upholding a ruling that says it is OK to do just that is just inviting a huge lawsuit should such an incident happen.

[quote=“cranknpiston” post=72864][quote=“lightningd” post=72863][quote=“cranknpiston” post=72862]whats to keep a driver from chopping someone every time they exit a corner?

not PITing himself?[/quote]

Or using common racing sense…:)[/quote]

Unfortunately that is not always the case and we can’t rely on that alone.

Where in the rules does it actually prevent someone from intentionally swerving into a passing car on a straight when the trailing car has overlap but has not yet established position by making it to the drivers door? What rule(s) actually prevents someone from turning racing that requires skill to pass into a game of chicken for someone with a checkbook and will to wreck cars in order to prevent passes?

Does ‘The main purpose of the “¾ car width” rule is not to allow one driver to “squeeze” the other driver’ adequately cover the above? If so then is intentionally moving over, and purposely leaving only 3/4 car width in an area where 2 wheels off has an extremely high percentage of a very bad incident that could result in serious injury and certain car damage not considered squeezing?

Where does it say “in all cases, racing room is considered 3/4” car width" like everyone keeps mentioning? I see where it says “in some cases…” Other than a wall directly next to the inside of the track as depicted in figure 5 on pg87, are there any other cases where 3/4 of a car width would not be considered racing room? Would it be OK to force someone outside and only give them 3/4 car width room at T9 at WGI? Please show me where it shows an example of a wall on the outside of a turn in the CCR? I don’t think it shows that as an example or mentions anything about that, therefore leaving only 3/4 width must be legal there. Should it be? Where in the rules provides for it not to be?

Why are the rules of an amateur club race series still allowed to dictate that it is OK to be able to intentionally put someone in serious harms way in order to prevent a pass instead of force someone to use skill to maintain the lead?

The debate at bf.c has an update. Rob and Jeff were both assessed 1pt for a racing incident. Jeff gets a DQ from the race. No suspension. Imo NASA-MidAtl ended up handling it pretty well.

Actually, no DQ.

From Chris Cobetto:

"Y’all,

Upon request by the trailing driver I have reviewed the videos multiple times.

It is important to understand that, as NASA officials we are required to rule based upon the CCR. Every decision we make has to be based on something that can be supported. There is some leeway built in to allow for making a decision that is fair based upon specific incidents.

The over taking driver had position yet had not completed the pass. He had the right to the line. The overtaken driver also had the right to the line and was responsible to provide “racing room” generally accepted as 3/4 of a car width.

25.4.2 Punting
The term “punting” is defined as nose to tail (or side-of-the-nose to side-of-the-tail) contact, where the leading
car is significantly knocked off of the racing line. Once the trailing car has its front wheel next to the driver of the
other vehicle, it is considered that the trailing car has a right to be there. And, that the leading driver must leave
the trailing driver enough “racing room.” In most cases, “racing room” is defined as “at least three quarters of
one car width.” If adequate racing room is left for the trailing car, and there is incidental contact made between
the cars, the contact will be considered “side-to-side.” In most cases, incidental side-to-side contact is
considered to be “just a racing incident.” If, in the case of side-to-side contact, one of the two cars leaves the
racing surface (involuntarily) then it may still be considered “a racing incident.”

Based upon my review I feel that the Race Director used the proper rules when making his decision. Based upon the rules the penalty handed out was technically correct.
However…

This in my opinion was not a classic punt in which a driver dive bombs another driver and punts them off of the track or impedes severely the direction of the car being overtaken and therefore while the overtaking driver has responsibility in this incident it does not match with the assessed penalty. This was closer to the “incidental side to side contact” mentioned in the rule above but not completely incidental.

It is important to understand that the lead driver was still the lead driver and had the right to a line. Under his interpretation of the rules applied at the moment he was only obligated to give 3/4 of a car width which is in the rules and a legitimate point of view. It is also important to understand the trailing driver, who had a right to the line, needs to anticipate that the lead driver may choose to have the 3/4 car width interpretation in his head and be ready to adjust accordingly.

In the NASA Mid Atlantic Super Comp school we go over these rules and we regularly say that one could be “right” but that being “right” is no consolation when you are on your roof watching the race go by you. We encourage leaving room for the other guy.

I see nothing malicious here. What I see here is two racers racing hard and both having shared responsibility in the incident with the trailing driver having the great majority. The reality is that the guy in front only has his mirrors but the guy in the back has his whole windshield in which to assess the situation.

In the end both drivers will receive 1 point on their license. The trailing driver will be repositioned from DQ to last and will not be assessed a suspension of racing license.

And since I have your attention…

Leave room. Close racing is fun and makes the beer taste sweeter after the race. Fixing bodywork is not fun and decreases proportionally one’s intake and quality of the cold golden (amber) beverage."

[quote=“sbarton” post=72894][quote=“FishMan” post=72877]
On another note, the CCR overtly points out that the possibility of wrecking your car conducting a completely legal move. If you are in front and someone is attempting to over take you, you have every right to crowd them at your own risk. I’m not advocating removing common sense from your driving style, but the rules appear to be written in way to clearly define legal driver actions and to remove subjective judgement from fault adjudication.

In this situation, I still think the rules are clear. For those that disagree, how about some discussion on better solutions?

What language changes would you suggest? How can we make our rules safer and easier to understand without introducing more subjectivity?[/quote]

Just trying to get a dialogue going that maybe the red car or white car weren’t in the wrong, but maybe the rules need to be clarified or addressed to prevent a dangerous situation like this from happening over and over again. All it takes is someone who thinks they will be protected by the rules and does not care about consequences or writing checks for race cars, to seriously injure someone else or worse, because the rules says its ok. Upholding a ruling that says it is OK to do just that is just inviting a huge lawsuit should such an incident happen.

[quote=“cranknpiston” post=72864][quote=“lightningd” post=72863][quote=“cranknpiston” post=72862]whats to keep a driver from chopping someone every time they exit a corner?
[/quote]

not PITing himself?[/quote]

Or using common racing sense…:)[/quote]

Unfortunately that is not always the case and we can’t rely on that alone.

Where in the rules does it actually prevent someone from intentionally swerving into a passing car on a straight when the trailing car has overlap but has not yet established position by making it to the drivers door? What rule(s) actually prevents someone from turning racing that requires skill to pass into a game of chicken for someone with a checkbook and will to wreck cars in order to prevent passes?

Does ‘The main purpose of the “¾ car width” rule is not to allow one driver to “squeeze” the other driver’ adequately cover the above? If so then is intentionally moving over, and purposely leaving only 3/4 car width in an area where 2 wheels off has an extremely high percentage of a very bad incident that could result in serious injury and certain car damage not considered squeezing?

Where does it say “in all cases, racing room is considered 3/4” car width" like everyone keeps mentioning? I see where it says “in some cases…” Other than a wall directly next to the inside of the track as depicted in figure 5 on pg87, are there any other cases where 3/4 of a car width would not be considered racing room? Would it be OK to force someone outside and only give them 3/4 car width room at T9 at WGI? Please show me where it shows an example of a wall on the outside of a turn in the CCR? I don’t think it shows that as an example or mentions anything about that, therefore leaving only 3/4 width must be legal there. Should it be? Where in the rules provides for it not to be?

Why are the rules of an amateur club race series still allowed to dictate that it is OK to be able to intentionally put someone in serious harms way in order to prevent a pass instead of force someone to use skill to maintain the lead?[/quote]
It’s a big mistake to make rules that try to cover every scenario. That’s where the race director judgement comes in. People that look for rules to cover every scenario should go to work for the government so they can see how well it works. I’m not suggesting that you are advocating for detailed rules, I’m mostly just attempting to answer the question “where are the rules”.

I think Rob goofed when he came across the track and hit Jeff who was essentially minding his own business. Screwups happen. I do them every race, in one way or another. I don’t think Rob was thinking about the rules and predicting how they would be interpreted. Jeff probably wasn’t either. In 1/2 a second it was all over. I submit that the real mistake was in pointing to the rules and saying “it was ALL Jeff’s fault, just look at the rules.” But after the crash Rob would have been furious about what happened and once emotions are running hot, fire and brimstone can fly everywhere. We’ve all been there, so it’s kinda understandable.

Chris, I really applaud your revisiting this subject…which brings us another point. 3/4 of a car width is not racing room…the rules need to be changed to “one car width or racing room”. As written,it grossly favors the lead driver which means the playing field is not equal for all.

The response about leaving room even though both may be right or wrong is the key (Cobetto). Regardless of the ruling, this is not pro motorsports and you aren’t getting paid to drive. Use your car inputs accordingly.

Chris, I really applaud your revisiting this subject…which brings us another point. 3/4 of a car width is not racing room…the rules need to be changed to “one car width or racing room”. As written,it grossly favors the lead driver which means the playing field is not equal for all.

I am not happy with how this went down. Yes, they lifted the penalties original applied and split the guilt between the two of them but they basically are now saying it is okay to squeeze a driver off track. I dunno, that seems kinda dirty to me.

[quote=“mcmmotorsports” post=72903]
I am not happy with how this went down. Yes, they lifted the penalties original applied and split the guilt between the two of them but they basically are now saying it is okay to squeeze a driver off track. I dunno, that seems kinda dirty to me.[/quote]

+1 and I disagree with Ranger’s remark about “rules that try to cover every scenario” being a big mistake. Rules will never be perfect, but in racing (not government) they need to be somewhat universal and simple enough for someone to think about in the heat of battle. If the race director has the lattitude to rule differently than outlied in the CCRs, then why do we even have the rules? Personally, I would like to be able to predict the outcome of my actions and if the race director can’t make a judgement aligned with what the rules say in good conscious, then the rules are simpy inadequate. Perhaps changing the definition to 3/4 to 1 full car width is appropriate, but in this situation the rules were not enforced.

This video was posted on another forum with the question, “Who was at fault”?

I watched from the red and the white cars’ in car views, and it seemed simple. Red car moves over on a straight, white car fades to his left as far as possible, and red car keeps coming. Too close. Contact is made and it ends in tears.
If I were in the white car I’d have done the exact same thing. I’d in no way think he was going to push me off the side of a straight!!!
Then I learned the white car got the whole enchilada of the penalty menu. I was flabbergasted!
Then I read the specific NASA rules. That took awhile. It seems that, per the rules there was a case to be made for the (clearly wrong- to me!) fault decision. Although there seemed to be room for judgement as well.
I was very put off by the “preaching” written on the video about how you better know the rules or else.
If I’m not mistaken, these rules are unique to NASA and BMWCCA. If a guy can just push me off a STRAIGHT when I’m side to side, and my only recourse is to either get ridiculously far alongside so I “own the line”, or nail the brakes, then I’ll race elsewhere. And the 3/4 car rule?? Wow.
Not knowing the personalities involved or the past history, I was left thinking the red car driver knew the rule, and pushed as far as he could. Scary if true. But also scary is the lack of awareness if it wasn’t intentional.
That rule and the 3/4 rule needs some serious looking at. WAY too much power to cars in the red cars’s position. Certainly I wouldn’t race with NASA if thats how it’s done.
I toss this in as an opinion, not to throw stones. I can see how this is a heated situation, and I’m sorry if I add to the heat, but the whole thing seems odd, and i thought an outside opinion might add a different light to things.
(I’m a roadracer, with over a decade under my belt. Done quite a few laps at Summit. Pretty decent resume, but obviously I’m no Sebastian Vettel ;))

[quote=“Lateapex911” post=72911]If a guy can just push me off a STRAIGHT when I’m side to side, and my only recourse is to either get ridiculously far alongside so I “own the line”, or nail the brakes, then I’ll race elsewhere. And the 3/4 car rule?? Wow.
Not knowing the personalities involved or the past history, I was left thinking the red car driver knew the rule, and pushed as far as he could. Scary if true. But also scary is the lack of awareness if it wasn’t intentional.
That rule and the 3/4 rule needs some serious looking at. WAY too much power to cars in the red cars’s position. Certainly I wouldn’t race with NASA if thats how it’s done.

Jake[/quote]

Unfortunately, I have heard that this rule will remain AND it was clarified as correctly interpreted by the race director. Not good. Not good for racing, not good for NASA and not good for Spec E30.
I will be contemplating my race plans seriously over the next 24-48 hours but it doesn’t look like I will be continuing in my current direction.

Since the trailing car no longer had his wheels even with the lead car’s door, it appears to me that the lead car doesn’t even have to leave the trailing car 3/4 of a car width. Under the rules, can’t the leading car track completely left and force the trailing car to fall back? I don’t think the rules “should” be written this way (not that my opinion matters, I don’t even race yet), I just want to make sure I understand them. And if this is the case, why was the lead car given a penalty?

The rules say that 3/4 of a car width is considered “enough racing room” in “most cases.” Why would it be considered “enough” in cases where dropping 2 wheels is unsafe?

From the BMW Club Racing Rule Book, this is how the NASA CCR should read:

4. On Course Driver Conduct
A. It is the driver’s responsibility to avoid contact between cars on the race
track.
B. Each competitor has a right to racing room, which is generally defined as sufficient space on the marked racing surface that under racing conditions, a driver can maintain control of his car in close quarters.
C. Drivers must respect the right of other competitors to racing room. Abrupt changes in direction that impede or affect the path of another car attempting to overtake or pass may be interpreted as an effort to deprive a fellow competitor of the right to racing room.
D. The overtaking driver is responsible for the decision to pass another car and to accomplish it safely. The overtaken driver is responsible to be aware that he is being passed and not to impede or block the overtaking car. A driver who does not use his rear view mirror or who appears to be blocking another car attempting to pass may be black flagged and/or penalized.

[quote=“Ranger” post=72900]
It’s a big mistake to make rules that try to cover every scenario. That’s where the race director judgement comes in. People that look for rules to cover every scenario should go to work for the government so they can see how well it works. I’m not suggesting that you are advocating for detailed rules, I’m mostly just attempting to answer the question “where are the rules”.

I think Rob goofed when he came across the track and hit Jeff who was essentially minding his own business. Screwups happen. I do them every race, in one way or another. I don’t think Rob was thinking about the rules and predicting how they would be interpreted. Jeff probably wasn’t either. In 1/2 a second it was all over. I submit that the real mistake was in pointing to the rules and saying “it was ALL Jeff’s fault, just look at the rules.” But after the crash Rob would have been furious about what happened and once emotions are running hot, fire and brimstone can fly everywhere. We’ve all been there, so it’s kinda understandable.[/quote]

The problem is if the Race Director is not allowed to use common sense and judgement, but strictly make decisions based on what is in the rules, the rules must be all encompassing. I totally agree that making the rules all encompassing is a monumental task destined for failure. Instead, give the race director a little more leeway to use common sense and judgement when making rulings.

A good litmus test is to put yourself in both person’s shoes and think what you would have done and what would have been your expectations of the other person. If you were in the Red Car, would you have moved all the way over leaving only 3/4 room in that section? If you were in the white car, would you hace dropped 2 wheels off there, or lifted on a straight?

Just to play devil’s advocate, the times when the NASA passing rules work really well are when the drivers don’t/can’t provide video of the incident. You look at the evidence on the cars and it speaks for itself.

Rob and Jeff’s kerfuffle is one of those cases where we have willingly-supplied video from both drivers and can dissect each move.

My opinion is that the initial call was as wrong as my DQ for this first-lap incident (also NASA Mid Atlantic). I was deemed to be at fault because I hadn’t completed the pass initiated coming out of T2. The other driver admitted that he hit me because he accidentally hopped the inside curb. The ruling said I should have driven further left (i.e. into the grass). I’d hate to see how many cars that would have collected.

Yes, I am still a little bitter about it. That’s where the fallout from the rules is a real problem. Am I excited about racing at VIR again? Absolutely. Do I look forward to doing it under NASA rules? Not so much.

Somewhere between NASA’s rigid adherence to their rules in spite of common sense and SCCA’s 100% judgment-call incident interpretation lies the right way to protect drivers without making it a glorified DE.

[quote=“sbarton” post=72917]
A good litmus test is to put yourself in both person’s shoes and think what you would have done and what would have been your expectations of the other person.
-Scott[/quote]

This seems like a nice idea, but I’m not sure I’ll have time to do this lithmus test next time before I make a pass. Given the simple overlap rule, it’s pretty easy for a driver to understand if he is entitled to the line or racing room.

First, I would like to thank everyone that has commented on this incident. I never planned on commenting because I felt the discussion would be better served without my involvement. I didn’t want anyone to refrain from speaking their mind because they felt I may be offended. Some of you might not believe me, and some will continue to bash me and that’s fine, but please continue reading.

Did I know the driver was there? Yes.
Did I know of the 3/4 rule beforehand? Yes.
Was my understanding of the rule used as a tool? No.

Some people may assume that I have a grudge against the other driver and wanted him to be punished and made ashamed of by posting the video in the way which it was presented. That is not at all the case.

Before this incident Jeff and I were friends, heck I even brought him two 6 packs of his favorite brew (stone IPA) in the paddock the day before the incident. After our incident, we have created an even stronger friendship. We have had several extended phone calls over the last few days talking about how this incident has created an opportunity for us all to better the sport, to improve the safety, to clearify the rule book, to better prepare Comp. school students, to recertify existing racers, to identify and address potential safety issues with Summit Point and maybe other tracks that aren’t up to professional safety standards. Each of us as racers, collectively hold a lot of power. We need to use it.

Lastly, if you feel passionate about a problem with your sanctioning body, I ask you to speak up if you don’t agree with the rules or the calls made by the officials, they will listen. Talk to Regional and National officers and let them know if you have a concern, they are listening.

[quote=“Rob in VA” post=72928]First, I would like to thank everyone that has commented on this incident. I never planned on commenting because I felt the discussion would be better served without my involvement. I didn’t want anyone to refrain from speaking their mind because they felt I may be offended. Some of you might not believe me, and some will continue to bash me and that’s fine, but please continue reading.

Did I know the driver was there? Yes.
Did I know of the 3/4 rule beforehand? Yes.
Was my understanding of the rule used as a tool? No.

Some people may assume that I have a grudge against the other driver and wanted him to be punished and made ashamed of by posting the video in the way which it was presented. That is not at all the case.

Before this incident Jeff and I were friends, heck I even brought him two 6 packs of his favorite brew (stone IPA) in the paddock the day before the incident. After our incident, we have created an even stronger friendship. We have had several extended phone calls over the last few days talking about how this incident has created an opportunity for us all to better the sport, to improve the safety, to clearify the rule book, to better prepare Comp. school students, to recertify existing racers, to identify and address potential safety issues with Summit Point and maybe other tracks that aren’t up to professional safety standards. Each of us as racers, collectively hold a lot of power. We need to use it.

Lastly, if you feel passionate about a problem with your sanctioning body, I ask you to speak up if you don’t agree with the rules or the calls made by the officials, they will listen. Talk to Regional and National officers and let them know if you have a concern, they are listening.

Take care -

Rob[/quote]

Rob is right guys. We have an opportunity to clarify rules. Open the CCR and take a hard look at things. What makes sense? What doesn’t? How do we race each other? When do we take chances? When don’t we? It’s easy to put a lot of this on the back burner and forget it after a race or even after a close call is no longer fresh in your mind. Our incident is behind us and we have both moved on. As Rob states we are BETTER friends now than we were before. What we want to do collectively is not let this chance go by. Our incident has brought out a lot of strong opinions and it has mostly sparked strong, intelligent, and well thought out debate. Let’s continue it. I stand with my friend and ask that each one of you think about the rule set. Think about what works and what doesn’t. A lot of this stuff is common sense, but we all need to stay sharp. We all can be safer. Thanks everyone.

I’d eliminate the “note to drivers” in the rules, p. 82, which essentially says “you can be right and wrecked, bad choice but we leave that up to you.” Not a good message, and not how anyone actually thinks, except apparently the officials who have to interpret the rules after an incident.

Rob comments make about half of everything I said wrong. So Rob didn’t goof, I did.

In general terms, there’s always one of us complaining about this rule and that, but there’s not a helova lot of effort put into changing those rules.

I said before that IMO the rules were good enough as is, but I retract that too. There’s some good ideas in this thread for rule changes. So write a rule change. Do a good job and make a compelling case for it. Don’t assume that the decision makers will see this thread.

I’m saying a SpecE30 rule change, not a NASA rule change. Cite the precedent that Spec944 CCR has passing rules that are more less aggressive than the NASA passing rules.

It goes w/o saying that anything Porsche guys can do, we of course can do better.

Ok, Porsche guys can go broke faster than us. I’ll grant them that.

The idea that our passing rules might be a little more tame then other classes in the same race shouldn’t be too hard to keep straight.

[quote]“I was PUNTED by the white car. The other racer wasn’t familiar with the rules and just hoped for the best.
It doesn’t work that way. If you race, do everyone a favor and read and comprehend the rules. …You probably think you know everything about racing, but you don’t…This situation could have EASILY been avoided if the other racer knew the rules. he was DQ’d, suspended for 2 races, and earned 6 points.”[/quote]

Your new post is quite a reversal from that ^ spiel, isn’t it.

And, as it turns out, your admonishment of him isn’t supported by the actions of the Stewards/Race director. You say he should have known the rules, as if to say you had rights, you were coming and he better know his stuff and get out of that position. But, it turns out that the officials see that differently, don’t they?

You say it could have “Easily been avoided” if he knew the rules, but the way I see it it could have been easily avoided if YOU didn’t press a situation where you THOUGHT you had the upper hand.
I ask you "Why?"
WHY did you push the issue in the first place? Were you attempting him to have to go two off to avoid? (While still fulfilling your presumed 3/4 car width responsibility)
You admit you knew he was there, you knew the 3/4 rule, but no you weren’t using the rules to your advantage? See, that just doesn’t add up.

Now you’re putting a new polish on it and saying it’s time for racers to exercise their muscle and voice their displeasure with the rules.
According to your video statement though, you had no problem with the rules just two days ago.

As a racer, I saw the video and I was SHOCKED that you did it KNOWINGLY, and even more shocked that the white car got ANY points, much less the points he got. While I understand that NASA (and reportedly BMWCCA) has some bizarre rules in this regard, I still think the white car (Jeff) is getting the short end of the deal, and he’s being VERY gracious about it.